1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

The topic is whether or not ID can be included in Science or not. Our discussion here is off topic. I have argued it is a proper subject for discussion and inclusion in Science, not rather DNA posses the characteristics of a code or not. This is the subject and you have given no compelling reason why it shouldn’t be included. But I will digress off subject

DAMABO: you said nothing about atoms no... you asked me to name a code other than DNA that does not come from a mind.
hence the thing about atoms. Yes the example of code that doesn't come from a mind can be atoms, since your criterion for a code is representing something else, 'instructing'. Where do you draw the line for what is and what is not instructing?

You are confusing laws of physics with code. Are you saying they are both the same? While the laws of nature are in themselves amazing and some have argued they point to God. http://webcache.goog..._Laws_draft.pdf
Laws are distinctly not physical. The paper I cite mentions God but it is not critical to ID as I have argued earlier in this thread. Lets get sidetracked here on the identity of the designer. Apparently you have not read my discussion on this point earlier.

Codes on the other hand almost always have as one characteristic, their origin their organization in intelligence. It, unlike the laws that govern the behavior of atoms, function like a digital code. http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0061472794


Let me again repeat how you identify a code.
“From a programer, Perry Marshall.

“The following specification defines the criteria for identifying a naturally occurring code:

1. Humans can design the experiment, with all manner of state-of-the-art laboratory equipment, ideal conditions etc. They just can’t cheat: the submitted system cannot be pre-programmed with any form of code whatsoever.

2. Since the origin of DNA is unknown, the submitted system cannot be a direct derivative of DNA or produced by a living organism. Bee waggles, dogs barking, RNA strands and mating calls of birds don’t count. Such codes are products of animal intelligence, genetically hard-coded and/or instinctual.

3. The origin of the submitted system must be documented such that its process of origin can be observed in nature and/or duplicated in a real-world laboratory according to the scientific method.

4. The submitted system must be digital, not analog.

5. The submitted system must have the three integral components of communication functioning together: encoder, code, decoder.

6. The message passed between encoder and decoder must be a sequence of symbols from a finite alphabet.

7. A symbol is a group of k bits considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message symbol mi (i=1, 2, …. M) from a finite symbol set or alphabet. The size of the alphabet M is M = 2^k where k is the number of bits in the symbol. For a binary symbol, k = 1, M = 2. For a quaternary symbol in DNA, k = 2, M = 4.

8. A character is a group of n symbols considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message character ci (i=1, 2, …. C) from a finite word set or vocabulary. The maximum size of the character set C is C = M^n. For a standard computer byte, M = 2, n = 8, C=256. For a triplet group of quaternary symbols in DNA, M = 4, n = 3, C=64.

9. The submitted system must be labeled with values of both encoding table and decoding table filled out.

10. For the submitted system, it must be possible to objectively determine whether encoding and decoding have been carried out correctly. For example when you press the “A” key on the keyboard, a letter “A” is supposed to appear on the screen and there is an observable correspondence between the two. In defining biological gender, a combination of X and Y chromosomes should correspond to male, while XX should correspond to female. For any given system, a procedure should exist for determining whether input correctly corresponds to output.

(Above definitions adapted from Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications by Bernard Sklar, page 13, Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 2001)”

I won’t repeat this again. An atom has no code.

DAMABO: I am not putting the finger on you for anthropomorphizing, I am mainly putting the finger on the interpretation of anthropomorphic terms we all use. and no these terms are not 'bad'. the supposed inferences that can be made from them are what is problematic.

And by using letters and words such as the word “rocks,” does not mean rocks do not exist nor have we committed some anthromorphic fallacy. There is a genetic code.

DAMABO: Just because you can interpret DNA as being similar to what we write in computers or to how we message each other doesn't mean it fundamentally is. the concept of intelligence too is problematic - again not saying this term should be banned or something! - but the problem is that intelligence is very relative. where do you draw the line? From my conversations with you, you seem to believe in two types of matter. Intelligent matter and non-intelligent matter. which would be a sudden transition from intelligent to non-intelligent. What basis do you have for this? none, I believe. Hence, the atoms come in again. We can just as well interpret atoms instructing each other and it would be just as correct since it can be too seen as a way of communication and letters that represent something! so yes, atomary reactions can just as well be interpreted as codes.

Codes we write in, come from our brains which are created by DNA and RNA instructing proteins how to behave. Intelligence and codes go hand in hand. Don’t you know the difference between a nail clipping and intelligence? How about a toe nail clipping and a brain? Can you tell a difference? “None.”

Atoms and cells operate using laws and codes. They are not the same.

DAMABO: by the way, these definitions of instructions are quite handy. in these definitions (except for the one about judges) emphasis is on transmission of information. As said, this transmission can be easily be done on atomic scales, and yes information transmission is easily possible on quantum scale. So then, this relates to my thesis that 'all can be coded into information' or something like that- we had a debate a while ago about, where you said that 'information cannot come from mindless matter' or something alike. well, clearly it can, information is omnipresent- everything can be encoded into bits!
So yes, instructions (bits of information) can be transmitted from one system to another even on the lowest scales.

“Easily be done!” Tell me how It is done. Tell me how information in the form of a code comes from atoms.

“Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

[DAMABO]

I would say for instance: if electrons (symbol 'e') are the code that carries relevant information, then atom 1 (symbol H) is the encoder and atom 2 (symbol OH) is the decoder. If this code is successfully transmitted to atom 2, they will 'know' to bond. The size of the alphabet of the code then is 1.
yes information is omnipresent, and not some thing that only occurs in things that are above our self-created cut-off for intelligence.



The fact that you question that information can be transmitted in the form of a code goes back to your apparent neglecting of the fact that it was humans who assigned the letters to the DNA-alphabet. Humans did assign those letters to the DNA-alphabet. The code language is not in DNA itself!
Hence, if a code is to be defined as information that can be summarized in code language designed by humans, yes, we can interpret anything as a code.

Edited by DAMABO, 25 January 2013 - 12:46 PM.

[DAMABO]

your comment about the difference between a brain and a toenail is missing the point I intended to make. just because a brain is different from a toenail, and a brain would be considered intelligent by us, does not mean that 'intelligent matter' exists. matter usually refers to the elementary components that make up the macrostructures we see in the world. I have heard of 'anti-matter', I have heared about 'dark matter', and I have heared about 'atoms', but I have never heard about 'intelligent matter'.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO I would say for instance: if electrons (symbol 'e') are the code that carries relevant information, then atom 1 (symbol H) is the encoder and atom 2 (symbol OH) is the decoder. If this code is successfully transmitted to atom 2, they will 'know' to bond. The size of the alphabet of the code then is 1.
yes information is omnipresent, and not some thing that only occurs in things that are above our self-created cut-off for intelligence.

Does a intelligent code even exist in your view or does everything contain an intelligent code?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUvPU-WRSbk

DAMABO The fact that you question that information can be transmitted in the form of a code goes back to your apparent neglecting of the fact that it was humans who assigned the letters to the DNA-alphabet. Humans did assign those letters to the DNA-alphabet. The code language is not in DNA itself!

The word “brain,” is not a brain itself. Where did I ever suggest a code cannot transmit information! It is information that has the marks of intelligence and can be encoded. I have now posted twice what a code is with no response from you.

DAMABO Hence, if a code is to be defined as information that can be summarized in code language designed by humans, yes, we can interpret anything as a code.

Well, we are just going to have to disagree. There are natural non physical laws which dictate how the physical materials behave but they are different from a code no matter how amazing.
I have derailed how we can tell the difference.

DAMABO your comment about the difference between a brain and a toenail is missing the point I intended to make. just because a brain is different from a toenail, and a brain would be considered intelligent by us, does not mean that 'intelligent matter' exists. matter usually refers to the elementary components that make up the macrostructures we see in the world. I have heard of 'anti-matter', I have heared about 'dark matter', and I have heared about 'atoms', but I have never heard about 'intelligent matter'.

Does intelligence exist? Tell me about it and while you are at it explain how it relates to our topic?

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 January 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[DAMABO]

The word “brain,” is not a brain itself. Where did I ever suggest a code cannot transmit information! It is information that has the marks of intelligence and can be encoded. I have now posted twice what a code is with no response from you.

No response except for that I gave you the example of a encoder, code and decoder in the atomic world????
Where did I suggest that you suggest a code cannot transmit information?
I suggest that the alphabet from DNA is an alphabet created by us, that having letters is an essential characteristic of DNA. Similarly, we can assign alphabets to all kinds of things (e.g. atoms in their bonding reaction) that don't really have letters in them, making them a nice example of a code that is naturally occurring.

[DAMABO]

*correction: that having letters is 'not' an essential characteristic of DNA.

[DAMABO]

Does intelligence exist? Tell me about it and while you are at it explain how it relates to our topic?

Let's see... how intelligence relates to intelligent design...
And yes, again as usual, you cry 'off topic' while you bring up these subjects yourself.

I think I have already explained my stance on intelligence - namely that it is a gradual property. That intelligence is a property that emerges from increasingly complex macrostructures consisting of what you would call 'mindless matter'. Intelligence is a gradual property, and we assign a certain cut-off to this property, from which point we call something intelligent. That does not mean that all things below that cut-off are truly 'unintelligent'.

[platypus]

Genetic algorithms.

[DAMABO]

***correction needs to be made in one of my earlier posts:
it seems I did say "The fact that you question that information can be transmitted in the form of a code goes back to your apparent neglecting of the fact that it was humans who assigned the letters to the DNA-alphabet. Humans did assign those letters to the DNA-alphabet. The code language is not in DNA itself!"

It would better be, 'the fact that you question that information can be transmitted in the form of a code in real life for other things than DNA, without being programmed by an intelligence'.
so for clarification, I only wanted to say that there can be conceived of code languages for every simple operation that occurs in nature in terms of encoder-code-decoder, similar to what we have done for the operations in nature that go for DNA.

Genetic algorithms.

can you explain? I'm not sure to whom and to which topic it is adressed :-).

[platypus]

Genetic algorithms code information (that allows them to thrive) into their genetic code via the processes of random mutations and natural selection of the fittest.

[DAMABO]

Genetic algorithms code information (that allows them to thrive) into their genetic code via the processes of random mutations and natural selection of the fittest.

but platypus, genetic algorithms are designed by humans, so this would be an example of a code being designed by an intelligence.

Edited by DAMABO, 28 January 2013 - 11:48 PM.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO: No response except for that I gave you the example of a encoder, code and decoder in the atomic world????
SHADOWHAWK: Where did I suggest that you suggest a code cannot transmit information?
I suggest that the alphabet from DNA is an alphabet created by us, that having letters is an essential characteristic of DNA. Similarly, we can assign alphabets to all kinds of things (e.g. atoms in their bonding reaction) that don't really have letters in them, making them a nice example of a code that is naturally occurring.

You found it below I see.. I never argued that the language aspect of DNA code was not created by humans. It is a system of symbols describing the Genetic Code. I have pointed out how to identify a code and said I wouldn’t do it again and again. You have never related to anything I said. http://www.longecity...270#entry560526
We can assign alphabet letters to codes when we recognize them. I have posted on what things DNA code include. We have, both theist and non theist, done this. That is not grounds for ruling anyone out of science which is our topic..

DAMABO: *correction: that having letters is 'not' an essential characteristic of DNA.

Language is not essential for any things existence either. Want to do away with it? If we do we won’t be communicating. I never argued this, so what is your point? These letters are not random a theme of evolution Let me repeat: “Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

DAMABO: Let's see... how intelligence relates to intelligent design...
And yes, again as usual, you cry 'off topic' while you bring up these subjects yourself.

I think I have already explained my stance on intelligence - namely that it is a gradual property. That intelligence is a property that emerges from increasingly complex macrostructures consisting of what you would call 'mindless matter'. Intelligence is a gradual property, and we assign a certain cut-off to this property, from which point we call something intelligent. That does not mean that all things below that cut-off are truly 'unintelligent'.

This entire discussion is off topic. You are the one who brought it up as if you were going to prove something though I can’t tell what. So I am arguing with mindless matter? Intelligence is just a word we assign but like DNA is a mindless creation. How do you know that?

DAMABO: **correction needs to be made in one of my earlier posts:
it seems I did say "The fact that you question that information can be transmitted in the form of a code goes back to your apparent neglecting of the fact that it was humans who assigned the letters to the DNA-alphabet. Humans did assign those letters to the DNA-alphabet. The code language is not in DNA itself!"

You did say that. I didn’t. Nor have I ever argued the Straw man you just created,

DAMABO: It would better be, 'the fact that you question that information can be transmitted in the form of a code in real life for other things than DNA, without being programmed by an intelligence'.
so for clarification, I only wanted to say that there can be conceived of code languages for every simple operation that occurs in nature in terms of encoder-code-decoder, similar to what we have done for the operations in nature that go for DNA.

I agree. Language can be used this way. However it can also identify things which exhibit intelligence. An arrowhead is not just a rock. A code such as DNA raises questions of intelligence also. At least it is deserving of scientific inquiry. Check out the You tubes in this post.

Genetic algorithms code information (that allows them to thrive) into their genetic code via the processes of random mutations and natural selection of the fittest.

but platypus, genetic algorithms are designed by humans, so this would be an example of a code being designed by an intelligence.

Good point.

[DAMABO]

Language is not essential for any things existence either. Want to do away with it? If we do we won’t be communicating. I never argued this, so what is your point? These letters are not random a theme of evolution Let me repeat: “Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

the example I have already provided above...

This entire discussion is off topic. You are the one who brought it up as if you were going to prove something though I can’t tell what. So I am arguing with mindless matter? Intelligence is just a word we assign but like DNA is a mindless creation. How do you know that?

so intelligence is off topic when the subject is intelligent design ? and I don't think I was the one who brought up the subject. You said something like: 'but how can mindful matter arise from mindless matter?'

You did say that. I didn’t. Nor have I ever argued the Straw man you just created,

I didn't create a strawman - although it seems so, because I forgot to specify the sentence further- that's why I made the correction right below that. paraphrasing that correction again: you claimed that information cannot be transmitted in the form of a code, unless there is some intelligent designer responsible for programming this code.

I agree. Language can be used this way. However it can also identify things which exhibit intelligence. An arrowhead is not just a rock. A code such as DNA raises questions of intelligence also. At least it is deserving of scientific inquiry. Check out the You tubes in this post.

Yes, I agree with you. I didn't say it doesn't raise questions, nor that it doesn't deserve scientific inquiry. My only point is that we must be careful to make such inferences - given that our language can sometimes fool ourselves, by fluidity of definitions especially. I may have been a bit harsh in terms of methodology, but just to show that such things are very hard to prove.
By the way, my stance on the matter is that intelligent design is existent- though I believe it would be bad for scientific practice to search for intelligent design in every thing that occurs in nature: it is in fact the last thing scientists should look for; we always have to look for 'natural' explanations first - although strictly speaking of course, intelligent design is natural too.

[platypus]

Genetic algorithms code information (that allows them to thrive) into their genetic code via the processes of random mutations and natural selection of the fittest.

but platypus, genetic algorithms are designed by humans, so this would be an example of a code being designed by an intelligence.

Perhaps, but what is being written in that code is written by evolution and not by an intelligent writer.

[shadowhawk]

Genetic algorithms code information (that allows them to thrive) into their genetic code via the processes of random mutations and natural selection of the fittest.

but platypus, genetic algorithms are designed by humans, so this would be an example of a code being designed by an intelligence.

Perhaps, but what is being written in that code is written by evolution and not by an intelligent writer.

Proof? “Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

[platypus]

Genetic algorithms code information (that allows them to thrive) into their genetic code via the processes of random mutations and natural selection of the fittest.

but platypus, genetic algorithms are designed by humans, so this would be an example of a code being designed by an intelligence.

Perhaps, but what is being written in that code is written by evolution and not by an intelligent writer.

Proof? “Show an example of Information CODE that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

Genetic algorithms. The coding itself is not designed by evolution but the contents are, as I said. Current genetic algorithms don't put the genetic algorithm itself under evolutionary pressure but one can imagine that if this was done, evolutionary processes might alter the coding itself.

[shadowhawk]

You claim to have given me an example of information code. Please explain how it is a code and how it works. Are you talking about an atom? All this is off topic.

How can mindful matter arise from mindless matter? OK, how?

DAMABO: I didn't create a strawman - although it seems so, because I forgot to specify the sentence further- that's why I made the correction right below that. paraphrasing that correction again: you claimed that information cannot be transmitted in the form of a code, unless there is some intelligent designer responsible for programming this code.

Yes, I agree with you. I didn't say it doesn't raise questions, nor that it doesn't deserve scientific inquiry. My only point is that we must be careful to make such inferences - given that our language can sometimes fool ourselves, by fluidity of definitions especially. I may have been a bit harsh in terms of methodology, but just to show that such things are very hard to prove.
By the way, my stance on the matter is that intelligent design is existent- though I believe it would be bad for scientific practice to search for intelligent design in every thing that occurs in nature: it is in fact the last thing scientists should look for; we always have to look for 'natural' explanations first - although strictly speaking of course, intelligent design is natural too.

Sense this is currently hotly debated science and you agree with me that it deserves scientific inquiry, we are not in disagreement over the topic of this thread, Intelligent Design is “In.” as a scientific subject. Friend. I agree with most of your final statement here. Amazing!

[DAMABO]

all this is off topic, really? you keep posting 'show one example of an information code that doesn't come from a mind' after every post you make!

I think I already explained how it works.
and yes, it simply boils down to assigning letters and names like messenger, encoder, code and decoder to things that exists in nature. it is exactly what has been done for DNA and it can be done easily on other things. Another example, if you don't like atoms, is sound waves. sound wave X has an information code Y (a code that contains information about what kind of amplitude, frequency etc the soundwave in question has) that arrives at some point Z which initiates the destruction of a glass window.
It may be the case that some things are designed but being able to be described as a code is in my opinion possible for everything that can be described as information (which indeed is the same as everything).

[shadowhawk]

I am going to let the ID guys speak for themselves. A code is not simply assigning letters to something. The logic, intelligence and function of the code is already there before the letters are assigned. I am not going to repeat myself again and again,(at least 5 times before) on this off topic subject.

Here is an excellent video by a philosopher, scientist and agnostic on ID. Great stuff.

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 February 2013 - 01:04 AM.

[DAMABO]

I am going to let the ID guys speak for themselves. A code is not simply assigning letters to something. The logic, intelligence and function of the code is already there before the letters are assigned. I am not going to repeat myself again and again,(at least 5 times before) on this off topic subject.

Here is an excellent video by a philosopher, scientist and agnostic on ID. Great stuff.

'function' is just another way of saying 'it seems this thing has this effect', but for it to be a 'function' and not just an 'effect' an extra condition is required: that it serves some purpose. so when you use the word 'function' it already implies that it was designed for some purpose. so basically you infer from DNA that it is created by postulating that it is created. before you say 'straw man', please reflect on the difference between causality and functionality - what, if any is the difference between cause-effect relation and a functional relation?
The causality is always there before the letters are assigned too.

on the side, slightly annoying that you always say off topic with things that clearly relate to the debate of intelligent design since we need to solve all these philosophical issues to see whether your hypothesis 'DNA is designed by an intelligent being' is correct.

Edited by DAMABO, 02 February 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[platypus]

So let me get this straight - even though evolution itself is clearly "blind" and not-directed, the claim is that DNA is still designed? I'll say.

[shadowhawk]

I am going to let the ID guys speak for themselves. A code is not simply assigning letters to something. The logic, intelligence and function of the code is already there before the letters are assigned. I am not going to repeat myself again and again,(at least 5 times before) on this off topic subject.

Here is an excellent video by a philosopher, scientist and agnostic on ID. Great stuff.

'function' is just another way of saying 'it seems this thing has this effect', but for it to be a 'function' and not just an 'effect' an extra condition is required: that it serves some purpose. so when you use the word 'function' it already implies that it was designed for some purpose. so basically you infer from DNA that it is created by postulating that it is created. before you say 'straw man', please reflect on the difference between causality and functionality - what, if any is the difference between cause-effect relation and a functional relation?
The causality is always there before the letters are assigned too.

on the side, slightly annoying that you always say off topic with things that clearly relate to the debate of intelligent design since we need to solve all these philosophical issues to see whether your hypothesis 'DNA is designed by an intelligent being' is correct.

As i said this is off topic. Engage me here. http://www.longecity...telligent-code/

[shadowhawk]

So let me get this straight - even though evolution itself is clearly "blind" and not-directed, the claim is that DNA is still designed? I'll say.

Can't figure out what you are trying to say but it is clearly off topic. This is a string on whether ID is a scientific subject which most agree it is. Engage me on your view of codes here. http://www.longecity...telligent-code/

[DAMABO]

This is a string on whether ID is a scientific subject

and reflecting on the nature of the ID theories is not a crucial aspect in determining the answer to this question?

You, by the way aren't even the topic starter.

Edited by DAMABO, 10 February 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[shadowhawk]

This is a string on whether ID is a scientific subject

and reflecting on the nature of the ID theories is not a crucial aspect in determining the answer to this question?

You, by the way aren't even the topic starter.

Good to see you know I am not the topioc starter. Good observation.

Can we ask questions of ID in science? Is it in or out as a scientific field of study. I think this has been asked many times before.

[N.T.M.]

ID is definitely religion, but under the guise of science. The greatest supporting arguments have all been debunked (i.e., irreducible complexity). It's simply not a tenable stance, not anymore.

[shadowhawk]

ID is definitely religion, but under the guise of science. The greatest supporting arguments have all been debunked (i.e., irreducible complexity). It's simply not a tenable stance, not anymore.

You have ignored most of the discussion that has gone on so far.

[N.T.M.]

ID is definitely religion, but under the guise of science. The greatest supporting arguments have all been debunked (i.e., irreducible complexity). It's simply not a tenable stance, not anymore.

You have ignored most of the discussion that has gone on so far.

Yeah, I admit I didn't read everything, but it's ten pages. 0_o I just thought I'd succinctly hit on the main point.

[david ellis]

This is a string on whether ID is a scientific subject

and reflecting on the nature of the ID theories is not a crucial aspect in determining the answer to this question?

You, by the way aren't even the topic starter.

Good to see you know I am not the topioc starter. Good observation.

Can we ask questions of ID in science? Is it in or out as a scientific field of study. I think this has been asked many times before.

I object to calling science intelligent design. Intelligent design is a carefully chosen label that implies a designer. When we finally understand DNA code, maybe there will be a message in our DNA from the designer, or possibly patent number. But until then, we should forget about patent holders.

The task before us is to understand DNA. And there is a lot more to DNA than protein genes, there are promotor genes, there are genes that regulate development, there are silencer genes. There is speculation that DNA controls evolution. In the 1940's Barbara McClintock discovered jumping genes, a process that accelerates evolution. There is a real probability that mutations of control genes accelerate evolution. Epigenetic DNA is a memory of past events, its existence proves that DNA uses that memory. So that is proof of another accelerater of evolution. Analysis of the structure of DNA with unknown function found that it is not not random junk, but is similar in structure to human language. This unknown DNA stands a high chance of being highly evolved control processes. The standard example of DNA mutation with proteins is valid, but insufficient to fully explain evolution, mutations in proteins do not have enough traction to get a car out of the mud, despite billions of years.

Speculating about a designer and intelligent design(no caps required) adds little value to science. And all of the names science needs have been found and will continue to be found as needed to understand DNA.

[shadowhawk]

david ellis: I object to calling science intelligent design. Intelligent design is a carefully chosen label that implies a designer. When we finally understand DNA code, maybe there will be a message in our DNA from the designer, or possibly patent number. But until then, we should forget about patent holders.[qI object to calling science intelligent design. Intelligent design is a carefully chosen label that implies a designer. When we finally understand DNA code, maybe there will be a message in our DNA from the designer, or possibly patent number. But until then, we should forget about patent holders

.What is the basis of your objection? Many fields of science (if not all) are called by their field of study. I wouldn’t call ID science anymore than I would call Biology Science. Both are a proper field of scientific study which is what this thread has been about. See ‘What is an intelligent Code?” They have written messages in DNA code by the way

david ellis: The task before us is to understand DNA.

Not the subject of this thread and what follows isn’t either. Please read what we have been discussing these last several months. This thread is not about DNA. See another thread which is currently being discussed on what codes are. No use repeating myself over and over.

david ellis: And there is a lot more to DNA than protein genes, there are promotor genes, there are genes that regulate development, there are silencer genes. There is speculation that DNA controls evolution. In the 1940's Barbara McClintock discovered jumping genes, a process that accelerates evolution. There is a real probability that mutations of control genes accelerate evolution. Epigenetic DNA is a memory of past events, its existence proves that DNA uses that memory. So that is proof of another accelerater of evolution. Analysis of the structure of DNA with unknown function found that it is not not random junk, but is similar in structure to human language. This unknown DNA stands a high chance of being highly evolved control processes. The standard example of DNA mutation with proteins is valid, but insufficient to fully explain evolution, mutations in proteins do not have enough traction to get a car out of the mud, despite billions of years.

A few facts sprinkled in with baseless pronouncements and name calling. I have few disagreements with the facts but again you seem to think this about DNA. It is about whether ID is a proper subject of science.

david ellis: Speculating about a designer and intelligent design(no caps required) adds little value to science. And all of the names science needs have been found and will continue to be found as needed to understand DNA.

Unless there is a designer which if there is it is of great value to science despite your pronouncement. All the names have been found? Did you prove this by science?